Problems In Scientific Thinking. #1 Theory Influences Observations When Columbus arrived in the New World he thought he was in Asia and proceeded to interpret.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Problems In Scientific Thinking. #1 Theory Influences Observations When Columbus arrived in the New World he thought he was in Asia and proceeded to interpret."— Presentation transcript:

1
Problems In Scientific Thinking

2
#1 Theory Influences Observations When Columbus arrived in the New World he thought he was in Asia and proceeded to interpret it as such. Cinnamon was a valuable Asian spice so first New World shrub that smelled like it was declared to be it.

3
#2 The Observer Changes The Observed Anthropologists know that when they study a tribe the behavior of the members may be altered by the fact they are being observed by an outsider. This is why psychologists use blind and double-blind controls. Lack of such controls is often found in tests of paranormal powers and is one of the classic ways that thinking goes wrong in the pseudosciences.

4
#3 Equipment Construct Results The type of equipment used and the manner in which the experiment is conducted, very much determine the results.

5
Problems in Pseudoscientific Thinking

6
#4 Anecdotes Do Not Make A Science Anecdotes-stories recounted in support of a claim-do not make a science.

7
#5 Scientific Language Does Not Make A Science Packaging a belief system in the façade of science using the language and jargon, as in “creation-science,” means nothing without evidence, experiment, and corroboration.

8
#6 Bold Statements Do Not Make True Claims A red flag that something is pseudoscientific is when outrageous claims are made for its power and veracity, especially when supportive evidence is lacking.

9
#7 Heresy Does Not Equal Correctness They laughed at Copernicus. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. Becoming a martyr does not mean you are right. For every Galileo shown the instruments of torture for exclaiming the truth, there are a thousand (or ten thousand) Walter Wanabees whose “truths” never pass muster with the powers that be.

10
#8 Burden of Proof Who has the burden to prove what to whom? The person making the extraordinary claim has the burden of proving to the experts and to the community at large that his or her belief has more validity than the one almost everyone else accepts. The burden of proof is on the creationists to show why the theory of evolution is wrong and why creationism is right, not on evolutionists to defend themselves.

11
#9 Rumors Do Not Equal Reality A classic fallacy of thinking is “I read somewhere that…” or “I heard from someone that….” Before long the rumor becomes reality as it is passed from person to person, usually by word of mouth, without the necessity of supportive evidence.

12
#10 Unexplained Is Not Inexplicable Most people are overconfident enough to think that if they cannot explain something, it must be inexplicable and therefore a true mystery of the paranormal. Even those who are more reasonable at least think that if the experts cannot explain something it must be inexplicable. This is often seen in the performance of seemingly impossible feats, such as the bending of spoons, firewalking, or mental telepathy, which are thought to be of a paranormal or mystical nature because most people cannot explain them.

13
#11 Failures Are Rationalized In science the value of negative findings - failures- cannot be overemphasized. Usually they are not wanted, and often they are not published. But most of the time failures are how we get closer to the mark of truth. Honest scientists will admit mistakes because they know that other scientists will publicize their errors, especially since they have had their share as well. Not so with pseudoscientists. Failures are ignored or more often rationalized, especially when exposed.

14
#12 After-the-Fact Reasoning Also known as post hoc, ergo propter hoc, this fallacy is related to the coincidences are not causation fallacy where the reasoning is literally “after this, therefore because of this.” Correlation does not mean causation.

15
#13 Coincidence Coincidences are a type of contingency- a conjuncture of two or more events without apparent design. When our mind makes a connection that seems improbable, there is a tendency to think something mysterious or paranormal is at work.

16
#14 Representativeness Seemingly unusual events must be considered for their representativeness of that class of phenomena. In the case of the “Bermuda Triangle,” where ships and planes “mysteriously” disappear, there is an immediate assumption that something strange or alien is at work. But we must consider how “representative” the event is in that area. There are far more shipping lanes in the so-called “Bermuda Triangle” than in surrounding areas, so accidents and mishaps are more likely to happen in such an area.

17
Logical Problems In Thinking

18
#15 Emotive Words and False Analogies Emotive words are used to provoke emotion and obscure rationality. They can be positive emotive words – motherhood, America, integrity, honesty. Or they can be negative emotive words – rape, cancer, evil, communist. Politicians are masters at this fallacy, talking about inflation as “the cancer of society,” or industry “raping the environment.” Similarly, metaphors and analogies can be powerful tools of language but they can also be misleading when they redirect thinking into emotions or down an irrelevant path.

19
#16 Ad Ignorantiam This is an appeal to ignorance or lack of knowledge and is related to the burden of proof and unexplained is not inexplicable fallacies, where someone might argue that if you cannot disprove a claim it must be true. If you cannot prove there is not psychic power, then there must be.

20
Appealing to Mysteries Related to #16, if an unexpected or surprising finding exists in another field, remind the audience of that, then argue your claim could be another such case. They said the coelacanth was extinct! They say that honeybees should not be able to fly in terms of aerodynamic theory!

21
#17 Ad Hominem and Tu Quoque Literally “to the man” and “you are another,” these fallacies misdirect thinking from the idea to the person holding the idea (and, in a defensive posture, to accuse the accuser of the same thing). The goal is to discredit the claimant in hopes that it will discredit the claim. The discoverer of a brain structure possibly linked to sexual orientation was himself gay.

22
#18 Hasty Generalization In logic, the hasty generalization is a form of improper induction. In life it is called prejudice. In either case, conclusions are drawn before the facts warrant it. A couple of bad teachers are generalized to an unworthy school. A few bad cars are inferred to mean that brand of automobile is unreliable. One mad cow in Washington means the meat supply is unsafe.

23
#19 Over-reliance on Authorities We tend to rely heavily on authorities in our culture, especially if they are considered to be highly intelligent. The I.Q. score has taken on nearly mystical proportions of power in the last half century, but as James Randi notes: “Possession of a ‘high I.Q.’ often has little to do with one’s ability to function as a rational human being.” While the source of an argument is important, being an expert in one field does not make you qualified to speak on as an expert on topics in other fields. Belief in the paranormal is not unknown in Mensa. Ph.D’s can be fooled too!

24
#20 Beware of the Jack of All Trades Authorities, by virtue of their expertise in a field, may have a greater probability of being right in that field, but it is certainly not guaranteed, and their expertise does not necessarily qualify them to jump to conclusions in other areas. A highly regarded physicist is not necessarily qualified to detect trickery or fraud in a parapsychology study.

25
#21 Circular Reasoning Also known as the fallacy of redundancy, begging the question, or tautology, this is when the conclusion or claim is merely a restatement of one of the premises.

26
#22 Reductio Ad Absurdum And The Slippery Slope Reductio ad absurdum is the refutation of an argument by reducing it to an absurd conclusion if carried out to its logical end. If the consequences are absurd, then the statement must be false. Eating Ben & Jerry’s ice cream will cause you to put on weight. Putting on weight will make you overweight. Soon you will weigh 350 pounds and die of heart disease. Eating Ben & Jerry’s ice cream leads to death. Don’t even try it.

27
Psychological Problems In Thinking

28
#23 Effort Inadequacies and the Need For Certainty, Control, and Simplicity Most of us, most of the time, have a desire for certainty, a need to control our environment, and a preference for simplicity. This, no doubt, stems from our evolutionary background in the quest to better understand and change the environment for the purpose of survival.

29
#23 cont. We must always work to suppress the need to be absolutely certain, in total control, and always to seek the simple and effortless solution to problems. The solutions, of course, may be simple and easy to derive, but this is not usually the case. Easy, black and white, 100% certain answers may have appeal but have to be resisted as we learn to tolerate ambiguity in scientific explanations

31
#25 Ideological Immunity, or the Planck Problem When enough members of the scientific community (particularly those in positions of scientific hegemony) are willing to abandon the old orthodoxy in favor of the (formerly) radical new theory, then, and only then, can the paradigm shift occur. The “establishment” in any science will resist change in the form of revolutionary new ideas; such ideas would displace the established figures, careers and reputations would be lost. When the conditions are prime for a paradigm shift, any such shift will still be resisted by the established figures in any field of study. Only when enough of the established figures accept the new ideas can a paradigm shift occur.

32
#25 cont. According to Snelson, the more knowledge individuals have accumulated, and the more well- founded their theories have become, the greater the confidence in their ideologies. The consequences of this, however, is that they build up an “immunity” against new ideas that do not corroborate previous ones.